Lal now has filed an original complaint asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an amended complaint adding other claims, including one under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1961, et. seq. He names as defendants the Borough of Kennett Square, its mayor, police chief, solicitors, housing code inspector, and council members, Judge Gavin, the receiver appointed to operate the apartment buildings, Chester County and several of its commissioners, and the borough's state representative.

In Count I, Lal alleges that the borough and its officials violated his federal constitutional rights by investigating, charging, and prosecuting him for criminal violations of the housing code. In Count II, Lal contends that Pennsylvania State Representative Joseph Pitts violated his rights by pressuring the borough to adopt policies which discriminated against him and by preventing consideration of his requests for federal and state money to renovate the apartment buildings. In Count III, Lal claims that Judge Gavin and Marita M. Hutchinson, Esquire, the court-appointed receiver, violated his rights during the civil equity proceeding. In that count, Lal also contends that Judge Gavin violated his rights during the criminal prosecutions. In Count IV, Lal alleges that all of the defendants improperly interfered with the operation of his business and a contract to sell the buildings, failed to manage the buildings properly, and did not consider his requests for funds to renovate them. Finally, in Count V, Lal contends that the defendants' actions violated RICO.

Along with other relief, Lal seeks punitive, compensatory, and "exemplary" damages against Judge Gavin for actions he took in the civil and criminal proceedings in state court. The doctrine of judicial immunity requires that I dismiss those claims with prejudice.
*fn3"

A judge may only be sued for money damages when one of two circumstances is present: either when the actions complained of are not "judicial acts" or when the judge acts in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57, 55 L. Ed. 2d 331, 98 S. Ct. 1099 (1977). Because judges must feel free to act without fear of incurring personal liability for their actions in court, judicial immunity remains in force even if the actions are alleged to be legally incorrect, in bad faith, malicious, or corrupt. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12, 116 L. Ed. 2d 9, 112 S. Ct. 286 (1991).

Lal contends that Judge Gavin is not immune from suit because his actions were not judicial and because he acted without jurisdiction. Lal's arguments are frivolous. First, what Judge Gavin did was clearly judicial. "Whether an act by a judge is a 'judicial' one relates to the nature of the act itself, i.e., whether it is a function normally performed by a judge, and to the expectations of the parties, i.e. whether they dealt with the judge in his judicial capacity." Waco, 502 U.S. at 12. Judge Gavin's actions -- his appointing Hutchinson, prohibiting Lal from interfering with the operation of the buildings, directing Hutchinson not to pay certain obligations, and trying, convicting, and sentencing Lal for criminal violations -- are clearly normally performed by judges. See, e.g., Waco, 502 U.S. at 12-13 (court order directing court officers to bring attorney before court is judicial act); Stump, 435 U.S. at 351, 359-60 (ordering mildly retarded woman to undergo sterilization procedure judicial act). Indeed, all of the actions of which Lal complains may only be performed by judges.

Remaining are Lal's claims that various defendants violated his federal constitutional rights in the civil equity proceeding, interfered with his business and a contract to sell the apartment buildings, improperly operated the buildings, did not consider or blocked consideration of his requests for funds to renovate his buildings, adopted and pressured borough officials to adopt discriminatory housing ordinances, and violated RICO. Because the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes subject matter jurisdiction of those contentions, I must dismiss with prejudice the remaining claims in Counts I-V.

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine provides that a federal district court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to review a state court judgment or hear claims "inextricably intertwined" with that judgment. See Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476, 75 L. Ed. 2d 206, 103 S. Ct. 1303 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust, 263 U.S. 413, 415-16, 68 L. Ed. 362, 44 S. Ct. 149 (1923). The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit construes the doctrine to preclude federal district court review of a judgment of both a state's highest and lower courts. Port Auth. Police Benevolent Ass'n, Inc. v. Port Auth. of New York and New Jersey Police Dep't, 973 F.2d 169, 178 (3d Cir. 1992).

A claim is "inextricably intertwined" with a state court judgment if, in order to find in the plaintiff's favor on the claim, the federal court would have to conclude that the state court wrongly decided the issues before it or would otherwise have to void the judgment. Centifanti v. Nix, 865 F.2d 1422, 1430 (3d Cir. 1989) (quoting Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 25, 95 L. Ed. 2d 1, 107 S. Ct. 1519 (1987) (Marshall, J. concurring)). Principles of claim preclusion will bar a litigant from suing in federal court if he had a full and fair opportunity to litigate his causes of action in the state court proceedings. Guarino v. Larsen, 11 F.3d 1151, 1157 (3d Cir. 1993); Valenti v. Mitchell, 962 F.2d 288, 296 (3d Cir. 1992).

Trial courts should consider the following factors in deciding whether to impose sanctions against a party for a violation of the rule:

Whether the improper conduct was willful, or negligent; whether it was part of a pattern of activity, or an isolated event; whether it infected the entire pleading, or only one particular count or defense; whether the person has engaged in similar conduct in other litigation; whether it was intended to injure; what effect it had on the litigation process in time or expense; whether the responsible person is trained in the law; what amount, given the financial resources of the responsible person is needed to deter that person from repetition in the same case; what amount is needed to deter similar activity by other litigants.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 advisory committee notes. Use of these factors is appropriate in this case and an analysis of several of them strongly supports the imposition of sanctions against Lal.

First, Lal's bringing suit was clearly intentional. There is no claim that his doing so resulted from some negligent legal research or an honest mistake about the holdings in the relevant cases. To the contrary, Lal continues to assert his claims even after the defendants filed the motion for sanctions and there is substantial evidence that he had a clear understanding of the defenses barring his complaint.

In 1994, Lal filed a pro se complaint against the Pennsylvania Board of Law Examiners, its members and staff, and the justices of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court because they refused to admit him to the state bar. See Lal v. Nix, et al., 935 F. Supp. 578, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10605. That case is assigned to me. During its pendency, Lal demonstrated his knowledge of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and of the Supreme Court's holding in Heck. He referred to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine on several occasions and discussed it in several papers filed with the court. Further, a month before the filing of the instant suit, in a November 13, 1995, opinion, I explained that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred federal district court review of state court judgments and claims inextricably intertwined with them.

Lal cited Heck v. Humphrey several times in papers he filed. (See, e.g., Pltf.'s Mot. for Recons. (document # 24) at 1; Pltf.'s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Recons. (document # 30) at 9; Pltf.'s Mot. for Recons. (document # 35) at 3). In my order denying a motion for reconsideration filed by Lal, I explained that Heck barred the filing of a section 1983 action seeking compensation for injuries relating to a state criminal conviction unless the conviction had been invalidated. (See Ord. at P 3).

Lal also was aware of the existence and scope of the doctrine of judicial immunity because the defendants in Lal v. Nix asserted it, discussed it at length, and pointed out several relevant cases. The fact that Lal filed this lawsuit and refused to withdraw it even though he knew that these defenses barred his claims establishes Lal's willful violation of the rules.

Second, the present violation is part of a pattern of abusive conduct by Lal. In state court litigation relating to this dispute, Lal has been sanctioned twice, see Lal, 665 A.2d at 20; Lal, 645 A.2d at 481, and at least one other time in an unrelated case. See Lal v. West Chester Area School District, 100 Pa. Commw. 70, 513 A.2d 1152 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986). As evidenced by the filing of this lawsuit, those sanctions have not convinced Lal to conduct himself properly.

Third, because, as I explained, all of the claims in the original and amended complaints are barred by obvious and well-settled defenses known to Lal, his rule violations infected the entire proceeding.

Finally, Lal has the financial resources to pay the sanctions I impose. He has the means to own at least two apartment buildings, which he agreed to sell for $ 1.35 million, (comp. P 56), is employed as a college professor, and has the education and skills to earn substantial amounts of money. Accordingly, only a relatively heavy sanction will deter future abuses by Lal and other similarly situated litigants.

In summary, because Lal's claims are not warranted by existing law or any nonfrivolous argument for its extension, modification or reversal and because he filed this lawsuit to harass the defendants, he has violated Rule 11(b)(1) and (2). For those violations, I will order Lal to pay the reasonable attorneys fees and costs incurred by the borough, its officials, and Judge Gavin in defending this lawsuit. I will also order Lal to pay a fine to the court of $ 1,500 -- $ 100 for each of the 15 defendants seeking sanctions. These sanctions are to punish Lal for his egregious conduct, including his refusal to cease his improper behavior even after being previously sanctioned, and to deter future violations by him and others.

4. Within 10 days of the date of this order, Lal shall pay to the clerk of the court $ 1,500.

BY THE COURT:

J.

Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.